Getting to the heart of the Amil confusion

[Stewardofthemystery]

Here is why Amils believe the first resurrection as is mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6 is past.

They have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

Now let me compare this to a harvest, as does the words of God as well. If I had a garden of 10,000 tomatoes plants and I harvested One tomato first before the others that would be a first fruit.

But is the first fruit the entire harvest? No the first fruit was just the first ripe to be harvested, but One fruit is not the entire harvest.

But that is what Amil is preaching, that the first fruit is the entire first resurrection, or the entire end time harvest of the dead in Christ as shown in Rev. 20:5-6.

So believing the One first fruit is the entire harvest of fruits they believe the first resurrection/ harvest is past.

This is the warning…

2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Marty fox]

Here is why Amils believe the first resurrection as is mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6 is past.

They have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

Now let me compare this to a harvest, as does the words of God as well. If I had a garden of 10,000 tomatoes plants and I harvested One tomato first before the others that would be a first fruit.

But is the first fruit the entire harvest? No the first fruit was just the first ripe to be harvested, but One fruit is not the entire harvest.

But that is what Amil is preaching, that the first fruit is the entire first resurrection, or the entire end time harvest of the dead in Christ as shown in Rev. 20:5-6.

So believing the One first fruit is the entire harvest of fruits they believe the first resurrection/ harvest is past.

This is the warning…

2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

No we believe that we take part in the first resurrection when we first believe in Jesus

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

No we believe that we take part in the first resurrection when we first believe in Jesus

I’ve heard from other Amil followers that say they take part spiritually in Jesus’ resurrection.

But to clarify I asked, so what resurrection do you believe the dead in Christ are a part of, the first or second resurrection? And they confessed the second resurrection.

This proves they believe the first resurrection is past, and they also believe the dead in Christ are not a part of the first resurrection as mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6.

This is also why they believe the thousand years reign began already when Jesus alone was resurrected.

It is a calamity of errors.

 

[grafted branch]

This is the warning…

2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

What resurrection do you think Hymenaeus and Philetus were referring to?

Obviously if they were claiming the final physical resurrection of the dead had already taken place then people would’ve just looked at the graves and simply concluded they were wrong, yet they were able to overthrow the faith of some. So what do you suppose was going on, what resurrection were they referring to?

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

What resurrection do you think Hymenaeus and Philetus were referring to?

They were saying the first resurrection was past because they were trying to overthrow the faith of believers.

Why would believers be concerned about the second resurrection?

 

[Deborah_]

The only "past" resurrection is the resurrection of Jesus. It's a documented historical event.
But Jesus also refers to a present resurrection: "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24) "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die." (John 11:25,26) This is the first resurrection referred to in Revelation 20.
Then there will be a future resurrection for everyone: "A time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out - those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28,29)

 

[grafted branch]

They were saying the first resurrection was past because they were trying to overthrow the faith of believers.

Why would believers be concerned about the second resurrection?

Because at that time they didn’t have the New Testament. It appears that Hymenaeus and Philetus were using verses such as those in Ezekiel 37, where the dry bones come to life, to claim the final resurrection had occurred and they were not part of it. In Matthew 27:52-53 there was a physical resurrection and it would make sense that Hymenaeus and Philetus were claiming the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrection was the final resurrection. They might have been saying something like see the empty graves?

We can say Hymenaeus and Philetus were correct about the resurrection and only flawed on the timing of the resurrection. So if you use 2 Timothy 2:18 to say they were incorrect about the spiritual resurrection then you are admitting there is a spiritual resurrection and only that it wasn’t past when 2 Timothy was written. This then leads to the problem of when does the spiritual resurrection take place if that was the resurrection they were incorrect about it’s being past already.

 

[Marty fox]

I’ve heard from other Amil followers that say they take part spiritually in Jesus’ resurrection.

But to clarify I asked, so what resurrection do you believe the dead in Christ are a part of, the first or second resurrection? And they confessed the second resurrection.

This proves they believe the first resurrection is past, and they also believe the dead in Christ are not a part of the first resurrection as mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6.

This is also why they believe the thousand years reign began already when Jesus alone was resurrected.

It is a calamity of errors.

Then how do you explain these verses below?

Matthew 27
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

The first resurrection is spiritual and happens to each of us individually when be become saved.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

(John 11:25,26) This is the first resurrection referred to in Revelation 20.

Being born again of the Holy Spirit is not the first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6.

Rev. 20:5-6 is talking about those who were physically killed ( the dead in Christ) being resurrected bodily to life before the thousand year reign.

Going back to the idea of the first resurrection being likened to the harvest. A harvest is not complete until it is harvested, which means the harvest is reaped and gathered together at the end of this world.

Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

 

[Marty fox]

The only "past" resurrection is the resurrection of Jesus. It's a documented historical event.
But Jesus also refers to a present resurrection: "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24) "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die." (John 11:25,26) This is the first resurrection referred to in Revelation 20.
Then there will be a future resurrection for everyone: "A time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out - those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28,29)

See post #8

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Because at that time they didn’t have the New Testament.

They had the preaching of the Testimony of Jesus Christ by the apostles and Paul.

 

[grafted branch]

They had the preaching of the Testimony of Jesus Christ by the apostles and Paul.

They obviously weren’t in agreement with Paul so they may have had the teaching but they didn’t hold it as being completely true.

 

[Wick Stick]

Here is why Amils believe the first resurrection as is mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6 is past.

They have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

Now let me compare this to a harvest, as does the words of God as well. If I had a garden of 10,000 tomatoes plants and I harvested One tomato first before the others that would be a first fruit.

But is the first fruit the entire harvest? No the first fruit was just the first ripe to be harvested, but One fruit is not the entire harvest.

But that is what Amil is preaching, that the first fruit is the entire first resurrection, or the entire end time harvest of the dead in Christ as shown in Rev. 20:5-6.

So believing the One first fruit is the entire harvest of fruits they believe the first resurrection/ harvest is past.

This is the warning…

2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Jesus wasn't resurrected alone.

Matthew 27:
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

[Davidpt]

What resurrection do you think Hymenaeus and Philetus were referring to?

Obviously if they were claiming the final physical resurrection of the dead had already taken place then people would’ve just looked at the graves and simply concluded they were wrong, yet they were able to overthrow the faith of some. So what do you suppose was going on, what resurrection were they referring to?

Here's my thinking on it, right or wrong. It obviously can't be involving what is recorded in Revelation 20 pertaining to the first resurrection if John hadn't even seen these visions yet. Duh! Right? IOW, they couldn't be trying to confuse anyone about Revelation 20 if Revelation 20 didn't even exist yet. Therefore, we can rule that out. What I'm thinking then, is this.

Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


This resurrection event included Christ rising from the dead and also included many bodies of the saints rising from the dead. This is the resurrection event they are saying is in the past. The err is not with that since they would be correct that this resurrection event was in the past. The err would be that they were teaching no other bodily resurrection needs to take place in the future as well since it already took place in the past, thus fulfilled entirely.

Whether I'm right or wrong that's what tends to make the most sense to me. Therefore, assuming I might be right, one can't apply 2 Timothy 2:18 to anyone in our day and time except for maybe full Preterists. Certainly not to Amils, since Amils, regardless how they are interpreting Revelation 20:4-6, keeping in mind also, that when 2 Timothy 2:18 is meaning Revelation 20 didn't even exist yet, Amils are not even remotely insisting there is not a bodily resurrection event in the future, because it was already entirely fulfilled in the past when Christ and when the many bodies of saints rose, therefore, no one needs to also bodily rise in the future because everyone that was to rise bodily already rose 2000 years ago.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Then how do you explain these verses below?

Matthew 27
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

That is the firstfruits (plural) of Israel that were raised right after Jesus was resurrected.

These are shown here…

Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Jesus is the first of the firstfruits (plural)

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

But again the firstfruits of a harvest is not the entire harvest/resurrection.

Romans 11:16
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Jesus wasn't resurrected alone.

Right, but Amils have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

 

[Ritajanice]

When we become Born Again,our spirit has been resurrected, which means ,raised into a new life in Jesus...we are in spirit, our spirit is Alive/ resurrected.

Short commentary.

Does resurrection mean born again?
He is not saying that by believing in the resurrection we are born again, but that the resurrection is the means by which this new birth and living hope come about. Jesus said that without new-birth, we cannot see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3 ).

 

[Wick Stick]

Right, but Amils have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

I don't know who said so, but I don't think that's a typical amil belief. A quick internet search yields this, which is in line with what I've heard in the past...

The first resurrection according to the Amillennialists theology is the resurrection of our souls at the point of Salvation when the Holy Spirit indwells us and we are reigning here on earth with Christ.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

When we become Born Again,our spirit has been resurrected, which means ,raised into a new life in Jesus...we are in spirit, our spirit is Alive/ resurrected.

This topic is not about being born again, it is about the first resurrection as is mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

I don't know who said so, but I don't think that's a typical amil belief.

It is what I have heard myself from several Amil believers on this forum.